G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree, dated, 5. 4. 1978, passed by the civil Judge, Haveri, in R. A. No. 178/ 74, on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20. 4. 1974, passed by the II Addl munsiff, Ranebennur, in O S. No. 59/ 1972, on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property. Plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract in respect of suit property which is part of CTS. No 1760 and 1761 of Ranebennur, consisting of two rooms. The suit property, according to the plaintiff, belonged to the minor defendant, his genetive father having purchased it for Rs. 1,000- on 17. 6. 1964, in the name of the minor. ( 2 ) THE father aid guardian enteredinto an agreement with the plaintiff on 13. 3. 1969, agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs. 1200 receiving Rs 600 on the date of the agreement. It was further agreed that the properties should be sold to the plaintiff as soon as he offered to pay the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff, accordingly requested the defendant several times to execute the sale deed. Ultimately, issued a lawyer's notice on 1. 3. 1972 asling the defendant to perform his part of the contract. The defendant was not willing. He denied the agreement. Hence the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for specific performance on 1. 4. 1972 before the learned Musiff. He averred in the plaint that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since the date of the agreement. ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant. He contended that the property was of the minor and as such the agreement was not legal and valid He further denied that there was any necessity for entering into such an agreement. According to him, he took a loan of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and even returned that amount. Therefore, there was no agreement to sell. He denied the agreement. According to him the suit was barred by time. The trial Court framed the following issues, as arising for its consideration from the pleadings: "1) Does the plaint'ff prove the suit sale agreement dated 13. 600 from the plaintiff and even returned that amount. Therefore, there was no agreement to sell. He denied the agreement. According to him the suit was barred by time. The trial Court framed the following issues, as arising for its consideration from the pleadings: "1) Does the plaint'ff prove the suit sale agreement dated 13. 3 1969 for Rs. 1,200/- and hnd paid Rs. 600/- as earnest money? 2) Does the defendant prove that he executed an agreement of sale deed on 13. 3. 1969 undar the circumstances stated at para-6 of his written statement? 3) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? 4) What order and decreed the trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered all the issues against the plaintiff and in that view dismissed the suit with rests. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil Judge, Haveri, in R. A. No. 178/74, on his file. The learned Civil Judge raised the following points, as arising, for his consideration in the appeal:1. Whether the suit is barred by time? 2. Whether the respondent has executed an agreement of sale dated 13. 3. 1969 for Rs. 1. 200/- and received rs. 600/-earnest money? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled for specific performance of contract? 4. What order? the learned Civil Judge, reassessing the evidence on record, answered point no. 1 in the negative. He aswered point No. 2 in the affirmative; so also point No. 3. In that view he allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree and decreed that suit for specific performance. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has instituted the above secondi appeal before this Court. While admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law is raised by this Court, for consideration in this appeal. ( 5 ) WHETHER on the facts and circumstances of the cases the inference drawn by first appellate Court that the alienation was for thei benefit and legal necessity of the minor is justified in law. Shri. Suresh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the agreement itself was hit by S. 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956. Therefore, they are the two points that arise for my consideration in this appeal. Sri. Shri. Suresh Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the agreement itself was hit by S. 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956. Therefore, they are the two points that arise for my consideration in this appeal. Sri. Suresh Joshi, elaborating the points argued that the first appellate court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the sale was either for legal necessity or for benefit of the minor. He further submitted that s. 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act clearly hits the agreement and as such it was illegal. It was not proper for the Court to grant relief under such an illegal agreement, the remeiy for specific performance being a discretionary remedy in equity. The first appellate Court having discussed the evidence on record has held that the proposed sale was for maintenance of the family as also for educating the minor in addition to repairing the lands under cultivation bv the guardian of the minor. The defendant-guardian has admitted in his evidence that he had 10 children, and that he was getting only Rs. 197 as salary per month. It was difficult for him, obviously, to maintain his family. He was also educating his minor son, the defendant. He had taken some lands on lease from Railways and he wanted some money to repair those lands and cultivate them. It is for these purposes that the agreement of sale was entered and under those circumstances the learned Civil judge has held and in my considered view rightly, that it was entered for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minor which he could do under the personal law. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised before me that the father-guardian could not enter into that aereement as there was no legal necessity or benefit of the interest of the minor. ( 6 ) THE other point raised is that the agreement itself is hit bv S. 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised before me that the father-guardian could not enter into that aereement as there was no legal necessity or benefit of the interest of the minor. ( 6 ) THE other point raised is that the agreement itself is hit bv S. 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act. Section 8 reads:1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian cam in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor, or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or subsection (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. (4) No Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. (5) and (6) thus, what is contemplated under sub-sect (2) of S 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is that the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court transfer by way of sale gift, exchange any immovable property. Agreement to sell does not bring about any sale in the immovable property. In fact, it does not create any interest in the immovable property. Therefore, it is obvious that no previous permission of the Court is necessary merely to enter into an agreement to sell. In fact, this court, in the case of Linga Reddy v. Ramachandrappa (1) has ruled that under S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, prior permission of the Court is not necessary for entering into transactions which do not come within S. 8 (2 ). In fact, this court, in the case of Linga Reddy v. Ramachandrappa (1) has ruled that under S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, prior permission of the Court is not necessary for entering into transactions which do not come within S. 8 (2 ). In that case it was held: "that a natural guardian of a hindu Minor need not obtain previous permission of the Court to enter into a contract of purchase of immovable property. Hence, after the Act came into force, the natural guardian of a Hindu minor is competent to enter into a contract for purchase of immovable property, provided the conditions specified in s. 8 (1) are satisfied'. In the instant case, no doubt the facts are the other way. The father entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minor. But the logic behind the ruling applies to the facts of the present case also. A mere agreement does not require previous permission of the Court. Therefore, the agreement is legal and valid. Argument to the contrary by the learned counsel has no substance. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that a sale requires the previous permission of the court and sub-Sec (4) of S. 8 of the hindu Minority and Guardianship Act clearly states that no Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-sec (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. The learned Civil Judge has discussed this aspect and has come to the conclusion on the evidence on record that the guardian had to sell the property for necessity, namely, for maintenance, as also for the benefit of the minor, namely, for his education. It is in that view that he has approved the proposed sale and has decreed the suit for specific performance. There is nothing wrong or illegal about it. He has used his discretion properly. Moreover, as re-produced above, sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 of the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, merely enables the minor to avoid the sale, if the sale is in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) and (2) of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and gurdianhip Act. Sale is voidable and not void. He has used his discretion properly. Moreover, as re-produced above, sub-sec. (3) of S. 8 of the Hindu minority and Guardianship Act, merely enables the minor to avoid the sale, if the sale is in contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) and (2) of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and gurdianhip Act. Sale is voidable and not void. It is for the minor to bring the necessary suit for getting the sale avoided and it was submitted before me at the Bar that the minor is now already more than 29 years and no such suit is brought by the minor. In the circumstances, therefore, I find that there is no substance in the appeal and it is devoid of merits. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs of this appeal. --- *** --- .